Many do not realize that there are quite a few cosmologies that are being explored by secular scientists. In fact, there are several versions of the big bang. We are currently in an era where the general consensus is changing about the big bang. It used to be thought that space is curved and limited in size. Now the thinking is moving toward the idea that the universe is infinite in size and not curved (flat). That was a minority big bang position just ten years ago. Get up-to-date here. Some of those cosmologies answer a lot of questions created by the big bang. But, the big bang is so entrenched in the professional journals and research protocols that to get funding, tenure and respect of colleagues, one must toe the line. You can see a petition signed by many secular scientists who are quite dissatisfied with the big bang. It started as a letter to the editor of New Scientist in 2004. Others have signed on since the letter was published.
Please note, we realize that the big bang does not adequately account for many new findings about the universe, it does not mean creation is automatically correct. It just shows that the big bang is deeply entrenched at the exclusion of other cosmologies. The primary reason the big bang is so well liked is because it is one of the few cosmologies that can explain why the earth is not in the center of the universe even though it appears the earth is in the center of the universe. Consider this quote in Scientific American, 273(4):29 from coauthor George Ellis, with Stephen Hawking, of The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time, "I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations... You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. To see why a young earth (6000+/- years) cosmology is correct and how the evidence points to the earth being in the center of the universe, see our page on Creation Science White Hole Cosmology (WHC).
The below links are to secular sites, mostly news articles in scientific publications. The articles are about findings that don't fit in the BB or contradict predictions of the big bang. Some are linked to creation science sites with analysis of problems... we'll let you know in the description by placing a "*" at the end of the link.
Finally, please note that the contradictions you find below fit the white hole cosmology and in many cases are predicted by the WHC. For example, the WHC predicts that galaxies at any distance can be spiraled, the Big Bang only allows galaxies far away to be spiraled.
......Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (usually abbreviated CMB):
Milky Way Rotates in two Directions Note that the article states this is evidence that smaller galaxies were absorbed to make the Milky Way. We see no evidence of this phenomenon when galaxies are viewed billions of light years away when they would have been doing the same. We should see it happening elsewhere if it is really happened as explained.
......General Big Bang Problems:
The Big Bang ignores how the universe was first created. That, they say is beyond naturalism to explain. That, of course, is a cop-out. But we'll let them take it. After the instant of the big bang, naturalism kicks in according to their own theory. About 1/40,000,000 of a second after the big bang, INFLATION supposedly occurred. The claim is that it was caused by "negative-pressure vacuum energy" which is never fully explained. Other amazing attributes are attributed to inflation. If you read the entire articles, you will see there are some problems. One of the biggest, which you will not see on the page, is how the expansion of the universe slowed back down. Naturalism has no explanation. This might be a good time to review the letter written by cosmologists who think the big bang should not dominate cosmology.
American Scientist Magazine - Modern Cosmology: Science or Folktale? Some insights into the real problems
......Solar System Formation - The Nebular Hypothesis:
An article on how Neptune and Uranus may have formed, but does not take into account the effect they would have had on earth that would have disrupted the start of life. Full of speculation to explain away a problem.Planet formation theories abound, contradict each other, and are all weak*
In addition, if somehow the particles started moving toward one another, or started to clump, Boyle's Law would prevent that clumping. A corollary to Boyle's Law is that a gas will expand to fill its container.